Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
STATION
CNNW 27
MSNBCW 18
FBC 11
CSPAN 10
CSPAN2 5
KQED (PBS) 5
KPIX (CBS) 4
CNN 3
KQEH (PBS) 3
KRCB (PBS) 3
KCSM (PBS) 2
CNBC 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 128
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 130 (some duplicates have been removed)
on that? we did not have the system of the budget deficits what makes it so much harder and just to sort of duty had enough, it is the persistence of trade deficit least not have one and now we do and that is a big drag on the economy. which hasn't been better actually the trade deficit is actually significantly down but not all. we have had some that have become more competitive that is the front on which we need to work. the political debate hasn't kept up with the reality it's no longer the quarter of that anymore. it's the broadest of countries some that need to be worked on and the next president isn't just china bashing but what do we need to do have a world that is everybody trying to run a trade surplus which the government believes it is possible. [laughter] >> then there is this issue of trade and income inequality. and there's a similar level that presumably had relatively little to do with the distribution. if you make -- canada sends assembled cars back to the united states that is and when to be making a big difference to the deficiency. now we do a lot in the countries tha
the kinds of revenue from the wealthiest americans to help the economy grow and achieve deficit reduction and this puts us on a path towards a better economy. >> [inaudible question] what will he do at this moment? >> i would simply redirect that question to the republican leaders, who to this day, have not put forward any proposal on how they would achieve revenues and address the issue on the top 2%. there is no other way to do it, there is no other mathematically sound way to do it. making vague promises about achieving revenue through capping deductions were closing loopholes, it simply doesn't add up to a serious proposal. we haven't heard which deductions they would cap or which loopholes they were close. what is true is that other proposals that have been put forward include attempts to raise revenue only through closing loopholes and limited deductions can only achieve this if the middle class gets stuck with the bill. or if you have a proposal that is wildly limply unfeasible because it suggests that we would wipe out charitable deductions. it is simply impossible and getting som
that bill clinton generated for the george w. bush administration, and turned it into a huge deficit. >> eliot: yes, look, that is a perfect articulation of what has happened over the past 20 years economically. david stockman is still telling the truth about what the true intent was all the way through. quickly, fix the deficit co-alation trying to use what they're creating, the emotional crisis they're creating, and in argument to lower their own corporate taxes once again. does that make sense to you? >> big corporations are sitting on almost 2 trillion-dollar of cash they don't know what to do with. the idea that they some how need more cash is absurd. the ceos, what they want for themselves instead of $8 million or $10 million in cash or in compensation they like more compensation. it has nothing to do with the welfare of the economy over all. >> eliot: former u.s. labor secretary robert reich and my nominee for u.s. treasure secretary, "beyond outrage" robert reich as always, thanks. >> thanks, eliot. >> eliot: turning to weather the prediction calls for cats. viewfinder. [ mal
and screaming that can't be part of it, yet all of them privately will tell you what's driving the deficit more than any single thing of medicare and medicaid and longer-term social security, so the mere fact that we are discussing those types of things fit. in terms of the votes, look, if it's going to be a deal there has to be votes from both sides. the reality is -- and these guys, the president and the speaker dealt with one another before. they've never been able to come to a deal. they came to a huge deal during the lame-duck session in 2010 on extending the bush tax cuts. they came to another deal without shutting down the government in april of 2011 cutting discretionary spending by billions of dollars and they came to another one on the debt ceiling as well which was a 2.2 trillion dollar long-term reduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. so, you know, the need to take it to another level. this is a more complex problem, and it's the beginning of a series of negotiations between the two. they are going to be together for the next four years. the president won the elec
is to go over the fiscal cliff. it maximizing the deficit reduction. there's no deal cut between republicans and democrats. it's not going to reduce the amount of money coming out of the deficit by a lot. so if you do that, you go back to the clinton tax rates, cut some defense and we have a short, mild recession for two quarters. we have to get serious about the deficit e. i have no belief that the congress is going to get serious about the deficit. so tom cole was right because he wants to get the republicans back in the mainstream. but the best thing the country could do is go over the cliff. >> timothy geithner doesn't agree with you on that. >> he may or may not. but i looked at this a lot of ways. the people inside washington are awfully smart and awfully out of touch. we need to do something about the deficit. going over the fiscal cliff is the best thing we're going to get out of washington in terms of serious production to the deficit. we will suffer, but we got ourselves into this. we're not going to get out without some pain. i think we are going to go over the cliff.
intervention to curb the deficit. it has been astronomical. then i heard barack obama say the way we are going to do it is by making more cuts in various ways. he was saying by making more cuts and the only people it is going to hurt is the working class and somewhat of the middle-class. he should mention the fact that out of control spending has a lot to do with the credit card crunch. specifically because of the middle-class. i think if we get those tax cuts centered with them, i do not think the poll would be affected. you have these small companies that are developing, and he is saying have those small companies hire more people and get them involved, but come consumer expenditures. that is partially i think a solution. host: you are calling on the republican line and you think hillary clinton would make a good candidate. would you vote for her in 2016? caller: i think she would be a very vital aspect to the political process. as far as her running for president, 2016 -- god knows what may happen from this point to that point. as far as her role as a democrat, i think by working along with
to cut the deficit. and say republicans will have to give in. >> did speaker john boehner get the message? because the message was work together. >> they're not going to openly concede on this point this far out from the deadline, but they see the handwriting on the wall. >> reporter: late today, gop sources said that they have some details about the proposal brought here from tim geithner. they say the white house is offering $1.6 trillion in tax increases over ten years, 400 billion in cuts coming later. and no new proposals dealing with entitlement reform. republicans say for them, a nonstarter. >> kelly o'donnell, another cold night on capitol hill. thank you. >>> and as this debate goes on, a memorial service in washington today for a long-time budget-cutting warrior, former senator warren rudman, and david suitor was among them, and former senator and white house chief of staff, howard baker, a republican from new hampshire who authored a bill that included automatic spending cuts way back in '85. warren rudman went on to found the coalition that pushed for reducing the deficit. sen
simpson shared the deficit reduction commission a couple of years ago. they are both in town trying to pound a sense at into elected leaders. evan thomas has been out of town promoting his book, "ike's bluff." terrific christmas present. >> thank you. >> as i recall, we were having the same composition we are having now. >> like groundhog day. talk about bluffing -- they will be complete unreasonable until the last second where they agreed. while they are bluffing, we could go over the cliff. >> where are we headed, mark? >> one side says that raising tax rates is an example, the other side says we will not balance the budget on the backs of students and seniors without asking those who make as much as i do not to pay another diamond. we are in the chest thumping a stage of this negotiation. we are interested in the product rather than the process. the process does the fact of the product and you don't want hostilities to make the final product unreachable. >> nina, there were a bunch of c.l.'s in town saying please do something so we can plan for our future. >> the difference betwe
different economy. what we have now is 8% unemployment. very sluggish growth and a trillion dollar deficit every year. you propose to raise taxes in that environment and you're not going to get growth. >> don't you understand you need to off set-- if you're serious about debt reduction, i think you are, don't you understand you need revenue and spending cuts. stuart: and how do you get revenues. >> how. >> please, go ahead, go ahead. stuart: it's easy you lower tax rates and keep incentive to work harder. >> we've tried that. stuart: and you can't-- what. >> george bush tried that. look at the deficit we had. stuart: well, wait a minute you cannot rewrite economic history. after george bush lowered tax rates the return to the treasury, the money coming into the treasury went way up and the deficit, by the way, in 2007 was 167 billion dollars. >> so. stuart: president obama has got, 167 billion a month just about. don't rewrite economic history, julie. >> i'm not rewriting economic history. stuart: you are. >> i'm not-- >> i'm telling you if you lower tax rates you'll get more revenue. >> t
is essential to reduce deficit. >> today, pelosi clarified she was not referring to the sequester. unless there is action in a hurry, there is a risk national security could be affected in what is a takous world. >> i'm worried because the only part of the federal government that obama administration appears to be willing to cut is the defense department. >> education would be cut by $2.3 billion. medicare payments to hospitals would be slashed by 5.6 billion. and custom and border patrol would lose $823 million. >> the point is to make it painful so they want to cut with a scalpel than a m machete. but it's not clear they will. >> bret: please join chris wallace for "fox news sunday" this weekend. he will have an exclusive interview with house speaker john boehner on the fiscal cliff negotiations. chris will talk to tim geithner. a "fox news sunday" you do not want to miss. check your local listings. consumer spending was down .2 of a percentage point in october. the dow finished ahead. the nasdaq lost two. europe's economy remains in the tank. 17 euro zone countries have a combined unem
the gramm-rudman deficit law, which was so important at the time. those issues remain important today. he did not aspire to be a politician, and he did not have to like one. he cared deeply. [laughter] we know he cared deeply about our country and devoted himself because he had a calling to shape and preserve our country's future. he believed deeply in the rule of law and used the force of his intellect to defend it. one of the things that is most telling about warren rudman is the statement that represents what he was all about. he once said -- i consider myself an american first and a republican second. fiercely independent, and totally committed to the common good, he had the courage of his convictions and stood for what he believed in. in bidding farewell to the senate in 1992, he expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve in the senate with talented colleagues. many are here today to speak about their experiences with him. he also expressed his hope for the future of the senate, saying it is a very special place with very special people. i hope in the coming years that the inst
, for which we're responsible. there is a $1 trillion -- $1.04 trillion deficit this year, fifth year in a row we have this kind of number. we're going to, as folks used to say when i was a young fellow, this country's going to hell in a hand basket if we don't get our act together. >> and right now, we still have time. dollar's not falling. we don't have treasury bond yields soaring through the roof lou: the euro is rising against the dollar. isn't that embarrassing? >> that's not a concern to the administration or congress. lou: we should say to hell with the sound dollar. let's em brails strong competitiveness. last i looked at the trade deficit, we were, again, lagging and uke sucking popped water. there's a rising deficit stripping our gdp. >> and right now europe is in a relatively deep recession. we're still above water. lou: you jumped all over the punch line because you talk about things not making sense. folks, this is not making sense. i'm delighted because people have wealth left in the equities market, the bond market. how long will that be the case if we go over the cliff? >> won
't raise enough taxes to completely deal with the deficit. and you do have to do reforms. you need to reform the tax system. you certainly need to make additional cuts. i do want to remind you though, that we have already voted on one trillion dollars of cuts, cuts that would cause great pain. i agree what you 100%. it can not be done. melissa: spending cutting numbers are even smaller than the tax numbers. they don't get us there either. i'm worried about stalling the economy. in the meantime when we talk about raising taxes and what it would do to small business. democrats like to point out we would only raise taxes on 3% of small business owners. >> right. melissa: but that 3% generates 50% of the income from small business. so they're hiring the majority of people. to me that is going to cost us jobs. >> well, you know what? i think that what will cost us jobs for sure is if we go off thissfiscal cliff, because it is not just about raising tacks. it is also about the debt ceiling. it is about unemployment insurance. we have number of key issues that absolutely have to be resolv
of 2013-type solution. but the reality of dealing with this economy, its debt, it's deficit, spending priorities and all of that is not going to get done in the next five weeks. so let's be honest about that. i agree with you. i think that they're going to come to a short-term stopgap solution that deals with the cliff, that deals with the bush tax cuts that expire, that deal with the increase in unemployment rate that's due to hit in january. they'll deal with those short-term things, but the long-term systemic substantive points that need to be addressed will not get addressed in the next four weeks. >> steve, how would you markets respond if they decide we'll have a short-term fix but we haven't actually managed to come up with the real healthy response to what the economy needs? >> you're seeing a total kick the can. we really got nothing done this december, tough luck, we just want to extend it six months, i think the markets would be jittery but would probably accept it. going over the cliff -- and we were talking about this the other night in washington with a bunch of ceos," g
who actually came up with a plan to cut the deficit, a plan that everyone hailed as magnificent but no one wanted to adopt. >>> joining me now is cnn contributor will cain. he leans right. good morning, will. >> good morning. let me tell you something. you said the popularity of gangnam style knows no limits. i beg to differ. >> you do? >> i think we just found its limits, when 8-year-olds start doing gangnam style you can count on its popularity decreasing. we're about a year away from it being makarena. >> trying to get two sides come together to come to a deal on the fiscal cliff. >> i don't know about young people's abilities to force cats and dogs and democrats and republicans to come together to find a deal. he had a much more profound message than just simply dancing in that clip, in that psa essentially. he was trying to alert young people to the fact that old people, bluntly, are organized. look at the army of aarp representatives that ensure that programs like medicare and social security, programs that take up something like 50% of our federal budget will remain intac
is on the line. >> we've got to reduce our long-term deficit. that's also important to long-term economic growth. and we have said we need to do that in a balanced way. >> how gutless is it to blame the people who are still working in this country? >> the only reason democrats are insisting on raising rates is because raising rates on the so-called rich is liberalism. >> asking for a political price to be paid in order congress to do its job, to ensure that the united states of america pays its bills, does not default for the first time in its history is deeply irresponsible. >> how gutless is it to blame them for the problems that exist in this country? >> their interested in wealth destruction. the country doesn't need a victory lap. it needs leadership. >> president obama had said that he has pen in hand, he's prepared to sign the middle class tax cuts. >> i think it's important congress act now, i mean right now. >> they're still not paying they're fair share? the people working have to pay even more in order to cover the incompetent errors by the spenders over all these years. >> greta: for
and its deficit. that's what we need. to try to slam the brakes right now and get to balance tomorrow is not desirable. economists will come on your show and tell you that that would not be good for the economy. so i think we're dealing with a degree of artificiality right there. >> congressman keith ellison, thanks for joining us. >> any time. thank you. >>> for more on this, let's bring in our cnn political contributor and republican strategist, mary matalin and cornel belcher, democratic strategist and pollster with the obama 2012 campaign. mary, what do you make of the details of this opening bid from the white house? republicans have already dismissed it but does it give us any clues at all about what an eventual deal might look like? >> it's reported that mitch mcconnell, senate minority leader, burst out laughing when he heard it. it's not even worthy of a laugh. it's really sad, it's pathetic. we went from a reasonable theoretical $3 in cuts for $1 in revenue which was basically the simpson-bowles, and are now at $4 of real and immediate tax increases plus new spending for in
income tax cuts. the republicans say the plan cuts the deficits by $4.6 trillion based on the white house method of counting based on the recommendations of the president's deficit reduction commission but the president could disagree. the republicans say the plan would raise $800 million through tax reform but not by phasing out the upper income bush tax cuts and before the plan was announced, white house press secretary insisted the rates will not make it to the new year. >> he will not sign a bill that extends those tax rates for the top 2 percent. we cannot afford it. it is not wise economic policy. not wise fiscal policy. it would defeat the principle of balance that he has embraced. >> the president wrapped up an hour long twitter session promoting what he called a balanced approach, as far as deficit reduction. >>shepard: is this posturing? >>reporter: well, it is, this great measure. each side wants to blame the other. and not just if we go over the cliff, but if they do reach an agreement, each side wants the other to take the blame for the parts of the ultimate compromise their
buffett and all his pals, it will pay off obama's 2011 deficit in the year 2520 circumstance, in 514 years time, and then we'll need the next half millenium to pay off his 2012 deficit. >> i think the republicans were sent there with a mandate as well as president. obviously the american people voted for the status quo. they voted for divided government. here's the question i have. i would no want them to think os and grand hides and the slem hammer we're robbing them with. if obama wants to take the country off the fiscal cliff, they need to go there. they seem afraid of that. do you see that. >> it's clear from the election that the majority of americans essentially voted for european levels of spending. you can't have european levels of spending. we're one percent under canada. there's no difference any more, not in terms of government spending. we're close to norway. we're not quite to sweden yet, but we basically are spending like europeans, but we're not taxed like that. the idea that you can close that gap, i think he figured out if he can make this level of spending permanent, he c
house deficit reduction package. later, nancy pelosi addresses the fiscal cliff and middle- class tax cuts. tomorrow on ", washington "" robert -- "washington journal," robert van order on the mortgage loan forgiveness. adult'eman on being an with autism. plus, your emails, phone calls, and tweets. >> c-span, created by cable companies and venture 1979, brought to you as a public service by >> president obama talked about the so-called fiscal cliff and his proposal to end the bush era tax cuts. he spoke at a manufacturing facility in hatfield, pennsylvania, for about 25 minutes. >> thank you! [cheers and applause] >> well, good morning, everybody. everybody, please have a seat, have a seat. relax for a second. it is good to see all of you. hello, hatfield! it is good to be back in pennsylvania and it is good to be right here at connects. i want to thank michael airington and the inventor of connects, joel glickman, for hosting me today. where'd they go? stand up so everybody can see you guys. there you go! i just noticed, we got a couple of outstanding members of congress here. chaka
is that at a minimum, any deficit package has to include this immediate february and march debt ceiling that we're going to hit. >> is jack lew the current chief of staff and former budget director the top candidate to be treasury? what is your best guess? >> he appears to be the frontrunner from everything you see and read and hear and he is a -- i've known him a long time. he's an accomplished guy. he knows these issues perfectly. he has worked in the financial community and has a sense of that and vice versa. and so i think he would be a it terrific choice. >> we should say there are a couple other people who have been rumored to being vetted. roger altman, former treasury official, larry fink, be erskine bowles. this what is alan simpson, erskine bowles' partner in the deficit commission, had to say about that possibility last week on the show. >> he said he would be very pleased to do that. he shared that with me personally, as long as they move the treasury department to north carolina, to charlotte. i don't think -- >> he's worked so hard on this. you don't think he could be persuaded? >
-war in washington, from one half of the team that produced the deficit-cutting plan republicans say is their inspiration, democrat erskine bowles. >> there are over $7 trillion worth of economic events that are going to hit america in the gut. i think impact would be really strong. if anybody thinks this is going to be a slope better wake up. >> ifill: the link between brain injury and sports, new evidence ties repeated blows to the head to long-term damage. we take a look. >> brown: ray suarez looks at the firestorm over israel's announcement it will expand settlements in the west bank. >> ifill: elizabeth brackett looks at how one chicago school is dealing with the transition to new state-wide standards. >> i really did find that the kids do understand more, and they learn more. they're more interested in what they're learning. >> brown: plus, as global carbon dioxide levels hit record highs, we analyze the increasing difficulty of combating climate change, with carol davenport of the "national journal." >> ifill: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs n
overwhelming the deficit story was at that point. you know, you look at that administration. the coming in, just no one thought they could do anything. it's not unlike the conversations we're having now. and they went in, they did the deal, president bush had to shift from read my lips to as only he could put it, read my hips. and it was good for the country, it created a political dynamic that cost president bush the election in 1992, and which we're still living, because that gave us grover norquist, et cetera. >> let's get to grover norquist in a minute, but i do have a question. the gop plan consists of $2.2 trillion in savings over a decade. that includes raging the eligibility age for medicare from 65 to 67. and lowering cost of living increases for social security benefits. they also propose overhauling the tax code to generate $800 billion in new revenue. but without raising taxes on the wealthy. in a letter to the president, leading republicans compared their plan to one erskine bowles drew up last year. >> not even close. >> he rejected that connection and the white house, of cou
could not print money, we would be in a very bad way. i just think we need to get this deficit under control. those two wars that we have not paid for need to be paid for. you know, it has to be done. if going off the fiscal cliff means that it will be done, so be it. host: other groups are weighing in on these fiscal cliff talks. here is "the new york times" -- in the "financial times" this morning -- roger altman writing today in "the financial times." president obama will be meeting with several governors today at the white house to talk about the fiscal cliff. they will be meeting this morning around 10:00 a.m. eastern time, and then the governors are slated to hold a news conference at around 11:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for more details. washington insiders tackle fiscal cliff policy solutions. the group will hold a roundtable discussion today on the importance of reform to address the nation's debt and deficit spending this event takes place this morning around 8:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for all our coverage of the fiscal cliff talks. we have a web
to reduce the deficit. jenna: interesting the president is saying he was speaking off the you have cuff, no teleprompter there. he's speaking about how he's rooting on american business. pointed to a couple of aspects much the economy, improvement in consumer confidence and housing as well. he was going to talk a little bit about the fiscal cliff and that's something we've all been talking about recently, and what it means for us right now and the year ahead. we also have other business news. we'll get back to the president by the way if and when we get that feedback. he will be taking questions from the audience there of business leaders as gregg mentioned. elizabeth mcdonald ever the fox business network is standing by list toning some of what the president had to say about the economy. liz, can you place it in context about where our economy is right now. >> reporter: the president just now was placing it in the -- the economy in the broader context of what is going on in the world, mentioning asia, mentioning europe, and then he turned to what was the most important part of the spee
trillion and due to expire in february without more deficit reduction. >> history shows that the only major deficit cutting deals we ever do around here ever comes after debates over the debt ceiling. it may be a good idea if you don't care about the debt, but it's a nonstarter for those of us who do. >> reporter: public opinion generally is on the president's side. house republicans are not paralyzed or powerless. in fact, they're more unifyied behind speaker boehner than they were on the debt crisis a year ago. why does this matter? the white house is noticing if there is a deal boehner can find the votes to pass it. >> thanks. we want to give you an idea of what's really at stake here. rebecca jarvis has a lock at how the government spends money and how it could spend less. rebecca, good morning. >> good morning. >> it comes up in terms of the money we're talking about in raising rates. how much is it that the republicans are objecting to? >> if you lock at that $250,000 number, if you were to raise taxes on everybody making $250,000 or more in this countr
they will not increase the debt ceiling now $16 trillion and due to expire in february without more deficit reduction. >> history shows the only major deficit cutting deals we ever do around here, ever, comes after debates over the debt ceiling. it may be a good idea if you don't care about the debt, but it's a non-starter for those of us who do. >> reporter: public opinion generally is on the president's side, but republicans in the house are not paralyzed or perilous, more unified behind speaker boehner than a year ago. why is this important? the white house is beginning to notice and now believe there is a deal boehner can find the stroets pass it. >> an idea what's really at stake. rebecca jarvis has a look how the government spends money and how it could spend less. rebec rebecca, good morning. >> reporter: good morning. >> the question comes up in terms of the money that we're talking about in raising the rate. how much is it that the republicans are objecting to? >> if you look at that $250,000 number, if you were to raise taxes on everybody making $250,000 or more in the country that would ra
party is being realistic about the enormity of the debt and deficit issue. what you just described is a very easy deal. it is sitting on the table, most of it is automatic. of the deal isn't reached in any case which is going to prompt something getting worked out but we need to cut about more than that. we are spending 23% of our gdpp federal government is, in one fashion or another and taking in 18% and that is not going to change all that much with the outlines of this deal. the democrats are not realistic about how much has to be cut and republicans are not realistic about how much taxes need to go. connell: the democratic side of it since we're speaking with you and delve into that a little more. if you are right about certain aspects of this, if dagen mcdowell and me can come after the president said he wanted the one$.6 trillion in revenue and say you wants $1.2 trillion because john boehner had $800 billion on the table last times those with the difference we are not exactly political geniuses all the respected political but anyone could have written that story and come up
, congress realized that if they couldn't compromise on a deficit and revenue plan, our economy would crash. turns out they couldn't compromise. so here's what they did. in order to force themselves to work together and compromise, they concocted a catastrophic penalty that would itself crash our economy. brilliant. put it another way. if there is an asteroid headed towards the earth, we made it and fired it at ourselves. because otherwise we would never have done the hard work required to protect ourselves from asteroids. >> good morning. it's friday, november 30th. welcome to "morning joe." with us on set, we have msnbc political analyst and vice president and executive editor of msnbc.com, richard wolffe is here. >> he's here? >> my lord. right here on the set. political editor and white house correspondent for the huffington post, sam stein. >> hi. >> cute thing. and msnbc political analyst and visiting professor at nyu and former democratic congressman harold ford jr. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> he's reading. >> put that down right now. put the smut down. close it up. >> i'm l
deficit and debt. so this, this legislation both accomplishes that goal and still provides an increase in diversity which is what the senator from new york was talking about. and then an additional point is the point that the senator from texas so very clearly made. this legislation passed the house. last time i checked, legislation has to pass the senate and the house. that's a pretty important distinction. going back to the comments of the senator from kentucky. he said hey, if we can't do it all at once because of disagreements, let's start getting done what we can get done. so here is a bill that provides us with -- with people who can help our economy grow, people in the sciences and technology fields that we very much need. it will increase diversity just as the senator from new york said, and it's passed the house. common sense says let's go. let's pass the bill. so we very much want to join with the senator from new york and the senator from delaware and the other sponsors that he referred to, but let's join on something that can actually get done, meaning a bill that passes th
. it is social deficits, executive function issues -- they can be put to work. if i may backtrack, because again we have heard about prevalence rates and the confusion of where these numbers come from. not once have i heard today the fact that the dsm iv, which constructs the criteria of who deserves a diagnosis, not once has anybody said that one of the reasons for expanding diagnosis was the expanding criteria to what needs a diagnosis. first off, the inclusion of asperger's, in 1994 opened up the book to a plethora of people including myself who never before would have qualified for an autism spectrum disorder, but even for traditional audits and the definition was changed. i may get these numbers wrong, but in the old book it was six mandatory criteria for a diagnosis of autism. if you got five but not six, back in those days it was mental retardation. now i believe it is eight optional out of a field of 16 possible criteria. that blows those numbers out of the water. >> i see my time is up. >> do you want to be recognized for a minute? mr. blaxill has a quick comment to be made? >> on the s
reagan on what social security and medicare have nothing to do with the deficit? have you heard that clip? >> bill: no. i know that's the truth but i haven't heard that clip from ronald reagan. try to find it, dan. yeah. he said it in his day. it was true then. it is true today. >> that's right. he says even if you pull that money, if you took money from them, it wouldn't go to reduce the deficit. so if you can get that clip, i think he was running against bob dole or somebody. i forget who it was. >> in the primary is. >> yeah. we will try to find it. i am interested in that. >> that's the thing with the republicans today even though social security has may nottedy of money if we would stop stealing from it. it's not going to expire anyhow. i mean run out of money until it rungs short of money until something like 2035 and even then, it would pay most of the benefits. it's a non-issue of dealing with the debt crisis. but republicans hate social security. they've always wanted to abolish it ever since the days of franklin roosevelt and they are t
to work, a lot of the deficit goes away. >> didn't they say that last time? >> i didn't vote for that and the word stimulus is totally discredited. it did not -- 7% of that bill was investment and infrastructure. 42% was tax cuts. we've been trying tax cuts for more than a decade. they don't put people back to work. real investment does. we have report after report, economist after economist, real investment will put millions of people back to work. >> right. those were tax cuts of the vast middle in this country. what you want to extend and the republicans. i'm still confused. if the president wants $1.6 trillion in revenue and is going to do his math, that's $3 trillion in cuts. why only put 400 billion out? >> well, he's probably leaving himself a little room to negotiate. >> a little. >> is reasonable on medicare. if he just started negotiating lower drug prices, that saves medicare $230 billion over ten years. and then you deal with some of these high cost private insurance plans under medicare and a couple of other minor changes that won't hurt average american, won't m
-author of a deficit reduction plan that neither side has previously embraced. i spoke with him a short time ago. erskine bowles, thank you so much for joining you. late this afternoon john boehner, the house speaker, sent a letter to the white house in which he said he needed to find different middle ground on this fiscal cliff issue. he particularly cited your report which he described as providing imperfect but fair middle ground as a way of breaking this political stalemate. he's saying only the president would adopt your approach that maybe this stalemate could be broken. what do you think about that? >> (laughing) well, i haven't seen the letter, as i think you know. it's nice that the speaker would give me some credit for trying to do that. but what he is referring to is when i testified before the super committee, i tried to show these guys that if they truly wanted to ghettoing that they could ghettoing at that time. and basically as an example on discretionary spending they were talking about cuts between $200-$400 billion. look, ghettoing on $300 billion. on health care between $500 b
rates for millionaires. are you kidding me? this will not make a dent in the deficit. here to disagree with me is christian dorsey from the economic policy institute. christian, thank you so much for coming back to the show. you are always a spirited debate partner. tell me why you like this. >> i'll tell you, melissa, to me this is not so much about the revenue that it would raise but about the message and principle it stand for, that we can't in this country have a situation where people are making millions of dollars effectively paying lower tax rates than america's middle class families. the principle of this, of this rule is actually what's most important. the revenue that it raises, it is important because it is not chump change but it is not in of itself going to change our deficit conversation but the principle is one that is extremely important. liz: but you're talking about wealthier people. well thinker people pay a higher average tax rate. everybody pulls out the stat that they want to look at. if you look at average tax rate of the top 1%, it is 23%, almost 24%. i mean, th
, that another really important part of this conversation in addition to long term deficit reduction is making sure that we get sustained economic recovery. we saw some good numbers today, but we want to make sure that we sustain that recovery. and extending middle class text cuts is part of it, but so is investing in our infrastructure, so are other elements of the president's jobs plan that should be part of this overall agreement. >> we have seen several liberal democrats to say that it is better to go off that cliff than to get a bad deal. and i'm wondering if you agree because it seems like the ceos who came out of the meeting with the president yesterday were most worried or at least seriously worried about the effect of not getting a deal on time and the effect that will have on the economy. >> we absolutely want to avoid going over the fiscal cliff because it would be a big drag on the economy. >> but are you willing to do that? >> what we're willing to do is come up with a package that both accelerates economic recovery, but also begins to reduce the long term deficit and the presiden
and is gradually repairing itself and healing itself with the assistance of the fiscal deficit. and this is one of the key things that if you pull that away too soon, you'll slow down the repair in the private sector balance sheets. and then you'll go much closer to stall speed so the economy will be much more vulnerable and exposed to shocks from europe, oil, you name it. >> and of course it increases the deficit, makes the troubles more difficult to direct longer term and now they want it do sort of the major reform entitlement next year. is that ever going to happen if the impetus isn't to deal with it right away? >> i think nancy pelosi and others are correct that the real issue, not just democrats, but also various republicans and bowles-simpson and everyone else, the real issue confronting the united states is not tomorrow's fiscal cliff. it's the outyears and the fiscal abyss of these entitlements that are unfunded. clearly unaffordable. so our view of the optimal way to deal with this is to not worry about today's fiscal deficit because that's a consequence of where the economy is. abso
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 130 (some duplicates have been removed)